News AFL overhauls Academy and FS bid matching, discussing draft lockout

[Art Vandelay_]

I know these things are inconvenient for the VFL club supporters to hear, but the truth is never an easy thing.

Serioiusly, for once just STFU.
You waffle on with gibberish all over the place.

The AFL should not have as much control over footy in Vic, a legacy of the pre-AFL admin. Still, they have screwed footy's structure here in Vic, What was once a proud and strong league is a shadow of what it once was, and the northern clubs feel it's their right to destroy it further and expect someone else to pay for it. It is appalling that 100-year-old clubs are being booted to the wayside to make way.

Oh for the days where Cleary, Donaghan and Co. called VFL games and cared more about the standalone's than anything else. Would dump all the northern club from the comp just to save Preston if I could. Wouldn't mind seeing Port, Williamstown etc stronger too.

The new VFL format is a mess. So many byes, too many teams and no care for standalone clubs. Either go all in on a dedicated AFL reserves with all 18 clubs and find a workable solution for the remaining standalone clubs on the eastern seaboard or revert back to the VFL of old.

One thing I think should stay is northern academies, they do attract footballing talent and help northern clubs with player retention. It just needs to be better priced. I'd like to see subsequent selections indexed higher so that clubs can still access academy talent but can't reasonably expect to fill a draft with it ala Suns this year. So for your 2nd academy/FS bid you need to pay say 10% extra in points, then up it to 20% for your 3rd player. This indexing should also apply to the other 14 clubs as well. Multiple FS and NGA players being bid on cops an increase in cost.

Make it so that if there's multiple viable academy players to pick then that club has to seriously trade out talented players afterwards to afford everyone, has to use their own pick at an earlier stage rather than trading out for points or has to let some players go into the general pool to be drafted wherever. End the late round points hoarding racket.

 

[jumperfan]

So why did you have pick 2 that year?

Pick 1 was a priority pick

So we would’ve picked Riewoldt anyway? What’s your point? The priority pick system was based on proper transparent criteria that we and many other clubs met at various points in that era. Your own club picked one of its best players this century with a priority pick.

 

[blueboy25]

So we would’ve picked Riewoldt anyway? What’s your point? The priority pick system was based on proper transparent criteria that we and many other clubs met at various points in that era. Your own club picked one of its best players this century with a priority pick.

Because one of your fellow supporters was complaining about Melbourne, Brisbane, West Coast, Carlton etc getting concessions and little old St Kilda have never been given anything where that clearly isn't the case.

 

[Elixuh]

Serioiusly, for once just STFU.
You waffle on with gibberish all over the place.

Hi Arty, if you’re struggling to follow I’m happy to explain things in simpler terms in PM, just ask!

 

[weltschmerz]

AFL: North needs a new NGA zone in Victoria as they won't have Tasmanian access any more
AFL: let's carve off a big chunk fo the Bulldogs' zone and give it to Geelong
AFL: this addresses the issue

 

[jumperfan]

Because one of your fellow supporters was complaining about Melbourne, Brisbane, West Coast, Carlton etc getting concessions and little old St Kilda have never been given anything where that clearly isn't the case.

It isn’t a handout if the rules were the same for every team.

 

[briztoon]

It doesn’t seem to be for you either given that you spend every waking moment on BigFooty trying desperately to convince sane people that a system giving 6th place 4 first rounders is fair and equitable.

Hey, if a team trades for the required picks, losing best 23 players along the way, then there should be no problem.

Richmond picks 5 kids in the first round, and everyone praises Richmond for good list management.

Gold Coast matches bids on 4 academy players and all the southerners lose their freaking minds.

 

[Elixuh]

AFL: North needs a new NGA zone in Victoria as they won't have Tasmanian access any more
AFL: let's carve off a big chunk fo the Bulldogs' zone and give it to Geelong
AFL: this addresses the issue

You can’t even be mad at a point. Geelong are the masters of this stuff.

 

[jdstorm]

If thats what the AFL wanted they would not allow a deficit at all.

I dont think they expect clubs to trade up to a specific pick. Thats often not practical in any case. They just dont want clubs downgrading and paying with late picks. Its a bad look.

Not having clubs trade out future picks is pretty easy to manage. You just say clubs can only go into deficit if they hold a pick in that round.

I’m a bit torn on this because defecit seems exploitable.

But also the goal is that the clubs who’ve developed these players should get yhem and if you need 2 top 10 picks to match a bid at pick 1 and no one in the top 10 wants to trade your stuffed.

 

[marcmurphy3]

I’m a bit torn on this because defecit seems exploitable.

But also the goal is that the clubs who’ve developed these players should get yhem and if you need 2 top 10 picks to match a bid at pick 1 and no one in the top 10 wants to trade your stuffed.

I think the reality is if youre going to bother having father sons / academies clubs should pay up but you need to balance that with making it realistic to match.

Youre never going to be able to perfectly balance both those things. So that shouldnt be the goal. Nothing is completely fair. Just need to get closer.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Few people would actually disagree with this. I suspect the only ones who would will be the St Kildas of the world.

And the AFL apparently

 

[briztoon]

It isn’t a handout if the rules were the same for every team.

The competition isn’t the same for every team. The inequalities aren’t the same for every team.

 

[jumperfan]

Hey, if a team trades for the required picks, losing best 23 players along the way, then there should be no problem.

Richmond picks 5 kids in the first round, and everyone praises Richmond for good list management.

Gold Coast matches bids on 4 academy players and all the southerners lose their freaking minds.

Gee it’s almost like Richmond traded away most of their good players and languished at the bottom of the ladder to do that. Gold Coast made finals and were able to draft 4 times in the first round. Take the anti-Vic goggles off for one second and you might be surprised at what you see.

 

[jumperfan]

The competition isn’t the same for every team. The inequalities aren’t the same for every team.

Ok, but I was specifically referring to one rule that was the same for every team.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

This is hysterical.

It’s a wonder you were able to type it with a straight face.

I doubt elixuh types anything with a straight face.

 

[briztoon]

Gee it’s almost like Richmond traded away most of their good players and languished at the bottom of the ladder to do that. Gold Coast made finals and were able to draft 4 times in the first round. Take the anti-Vic goggles off for one second and you might be surprised at what you see.

Yep, and Gold Coast traded picks, including a first round pick, from 2024 in to 2025. Traded out Lukosius in 2024 for a 2025 first round pick. Traded most of their remaining 2026 picks (2xF3’s and 1xF2’s) into 2025.

But none of you will acknowledge this, as it doesn’t suit your tantrum.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Hey, if a team trades for the required picks, losing best 23 players along the way, then there should be no problem.

Richmond picks 5 kids in the first round, and everyone praises Richmond for good list management.

Gold Coast matches bids on 4 academy players and all the southerners lose their freaking minds.

Your point is a straw man.
No one reasonable has any issue with any club taking academy players they have an issue with any club rorting the system by trading out r1s and then matching bids with later picks that dont correspond to real world market price, and exploiting loopholes by trading in picks that they dont have list spots for.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Yep, and Gold Coast traded picks, including a first round pick, from 2024 in to 2025. Traded out Lukosius in 2024 for a 2025 first round pick. Traded most of their remaining 2026 picks (2xF3’s and 1xF2’s) into 2025.

But none of you will acknowledge this, as it doesn’t suit your tantrum.

This argument is stupid.
Luko is terribly overrated (apart from ports stupidity) and basically none of the other picks or fringe players they moved (except flanders) were worth anywhere near a top 20 pick yet they matched 4 top 20 bids. How is that in any way real world price paid?
If you understand drafting you shouldn't need me to explain to you why picks 21 23 25 and 26 are not equal to pick 2.

 

[JasRulz63]

Yeah , I dont think much thought has been put into it, as its always been easy to match without deficit.

Logic would say that you should only be able to go into deficit, if you still hold the picks for the next draft.

So if you hold a 1st round pick for the next draft, you can go into deficit by the points equivalent of pick 18. If you only hold a 2nd then its pick 36. Or if its ok to make up deficit with 2 picks then add the 2.

I think that's how it works. They changed it when they introduced future pick trading (10 years ago) that teams get the points equivalent of the last pick of the round for whatever they hold in the follow draft as their deficit. So if you have two firsts and nothing else, they get the points equivalent of two pick 18s.

The idea is that you have to pay back the entire deficit with the following year's draft hand. Logic would then dictate they'd need to factor in all Tasmania's first round picks for 2027, which should reduce the deficit allowed for the 2026 draft. No idea if the AFL thinks of this or not.

Although you could still trade them away during the next trade period, before the draft, so the afl would have to think how to police that. Without it getting super complicated.

You pay back your deficit before the trade period the following year after incurring the deficit (see Freo in 2020).

 

[jumperfan]

Yep, and Gold Coast traded picks, including a first round pick, from 2024 in to 2025. Traded out Lukosius in 2024 for a 2025 first round pick. Traded most of their remaining 2026 picks (2xF3’s and 1xF2’s) into 2025.

But none of you will acknowledge this, as it doesn’t suit your tantrum.

They could afford to do that without bottoming out though. They only had to give up some role players and perform some pick swaps and were still able to pick up all of their academy kids and bring in Petracca with two other first rounders. Richmond traded away basically everything they had to go all in on the draft.

 

[briztoon]

Ok, but I was specifically referring to one rule that was the same for every team.

And the AFL had to supersize it because Vic clubs spent half a decade stealing players out of GC, because you know, those Vic kids missed mummies cooking.

You all whinge about the end result, without acknowledging the reasons why, Gold Coast are in the position they are in.

North, and now West Coast were/are in similar straits, but are self inflicted, rather than AFL induced.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Hi Arty, if you’re struggling to follow I’m happy to explain things in simpler terms in PM, just ask!

The only PM I am interested in you getting is the one from admin banning your ass.
Your trolling is puerile.

Just post like a normal person.

 

[jumperfan]

And the AFL had to supersize it because Vic clubs spent half a decade stealing players out of GC, because you know, those Vic kids missed mummies cooking.

You all whinge about the end result, without acknowledging the reasons why, Gold Coast are in the position they are in.

North, and now West Coast were/are in similar straits, but are self inflicted, rather than AFL induced.

What on Earth are you going on about? Did you even read the chain I was originally responding to? Looks like you're the one constantly whinging and melting down everywhere without even understanding the context of the posts you're replying to.

 

[marcmurphy3]

I think that's how it works. They changed it when they introduced future pick trading (10 years ago) that teams get the points equivalent of the last pick of the round for whatever they hold in the follow draft as their deficit. So if you have two firsts and nothing else, they get the points equivalent of two pick 18s.

The idea is that you have to pay back the entire deficit with the following year's draft hand. Logic would then dictate they'd need to factor in all Tasmania's first round picks for 2027, which should reduce the deficit allowed for the 2026 draft. No idea if the AFL thinks of this or not.



You pay back your deficit before the trade period the following year after incurring the deficit (see Freo in 2020).

They'll need to work out something for 2027. Not fair to reduce the deficit allowed for 1 year just because they want to give Tassie a heap of picks. Same goes with matching bids that year.

 

[Elixuh]

The only PM I am interested in you getting is the one from admin banning your ass.
Your trolling is puerile.

Just post like a normal person.

Arty you have a post count average of like 25 posts a day over 15 years. Cmon now.